Subject: Re: Greenpeace letters to Enron Europe concerning our position on Kyoto
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 00:33:00 -0700 (PDT)

I think Jeff should be the point person on putting the response together on 
this (and future air and climate change position inquiries).  Jeff - please 
make sure you get the comments of all involved.

Jeffrey Keeler
04/17/2001 05:02 PM
To: Michael Terraso/OTS/Enron@ENRON, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Kelly 
Kimberly/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Lauren 
Iannarone/NY/ECT@ECT, Catherine McKalip-Thompson/Enron Communications@Enron 
Communications, Lisa Jacobson/ENRON@enronXgate, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: Re: Greenpeace letters to Enron Europe concerning our position on 
Kyoto  

All:  I would like to discuss how we might respond to this letter from 
Greenpeace, if at all.  The letter is attached way at the bottom of this 
e-mail, and was received in several Enron European offices as a copy of what 
was sent to Jeff Skilling and other CEOs of major companies.  I have not 
confirmed our receipt of such a letter from any of you, but am assuming it 
was delivered.

I think we could respond in a very positive, constructive manner to 
Greenpeace, based on the statements we've already documented and the 
strategies we are developing.  Lisa Jacobson and I are currently working on 
developing some tighter climate change and clean air "messages" that we can 
use in multiple areas ASAP -- upcoming Ken Lay speeches and interactions with 
the Administration, revising the Statement for the 2001 Corporate 
Responsibility Report, Enron Business articles and other internal uses, 
responses to environmental group inquiries and shareholder meeting Q&A, and 
use in everyday speeches and advocacy work.

The Greenpeace questions are tricky, and set up no-win answers for the most 
part.  I doubt they will get any direct answers to questions like:  "Does 
your company support President Bush in his opposition to the protocol?"   In 
my opinion, we can respond to Greenpeace without directly responding to these 
types of questions.  Addressing Kyoto directly is a slippery slope -- its 
best to stick with the solution-oriented approach we've always taken.

For this reason, I was a bit concerned to see in the e-mail chain below a 
characterization of Mark Palmer's statement on Kyoto (given to Jackie Gentile 
in London) -- "Enron has always taken the view that the Kyoto protocol was 
not a workable solution to dealing with CO2 emissions.  However it is not the 
principles behind Kyoto that we take issue with, rather it is the vehicle 
that has been devised to deliver the results."  I believe it is dangerous to 
make such statements for a number of reasons -- Greenpeace would absolutely 
beat us over the head with it, Friends of the Earth could step up its 
shareholder initiatives, etc.    Also, this sets you up for a number of 
follow up questions that I don't think we have answers to, like:  What about 
Kyoto is not workable?  What would make it workable and would we help make it 
workable?  If not Kyoto, what is Enron's preferred "vehicle?"  I'd really 
rather stay with a constructive, solution-oriented approach and avoid 
reference to Kyoto altogether.

I will talk with Kate Bauer in Enron Europe about this, but I think we need 
to decide on a global, corporate-wide response to Greenpeace.   I would be 
happy to set up a quick conference call on the subject, or just field 
comments by e-mail -- whatever works best.

Thoughts?

Jeffrey Keeler
Director, Environmental Strategies
Enron
Washington DC office - (202) 466-9157
Cell Phone (203) 464-1541

	Lauren Iannarone@ECT
	04/17/2001 11:20 AM
		 
		 To: [email-masked]
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Re: Greenpeace letters to Enron Europe concerning our position on 
Kyoto

FYI:  I  defer to you on this but assume we are in a good position to respond 
to Greenpeace.  I assume you will discuss with Kate and Peter - let me know - 
thanks

---------------------- Forwarded by Lauren Iannarone/NY/ECT on 04/17/2001 
11:37 AM ---------------------------

[email-masked] on 04/17/2001 09:42:40 AM
To: [email-masked]
cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], 
[email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], 
[email-masked] 

Subject: Re: Greenpeace letters to Enron Europe concerning our position on 
Kyoto

Thanks Kate. Please keep Nailia Dindarova in my Brussels office and me
copied on responses since I will be co-ordinating any pronouncements on
this topic in Europe in policymakers' circles. For them neither the
negativity nor the vagueness of the words you quote below (on which Mark
and Jackie already know my views!) will be adequate.

Kate Bauer@ENRON
17/04/2001 15:36

To:   [email-masked]
cc:   [email-masked], Fiona Grant/LON/ECT@ECT, Jackie
      Gentle/LON/ECT@ECT, Peter Styles/LON/ECT@ECT

Subject:  Re: Greenpeace letters to Enron in the Netherlands and Spain re
      our position on Kyoto

Lauren

Further to my telephone message today, I would be grateful for your view on
the approach we should be taking to the issue of Greenpeace sending letters
to our European offices re: Kyoto. Several of our offices (Spain, Belgium,
Netherlands) have received a local language version of the letter
originally sent to Jeff Skilling, and other CEOs, on 5 April 2001. The
email chain below gives an indication of what is in circulation.

Greenpeace is expecting a response within the next week. Jackie Gentle has
made me the point of contact in the PR department for this issue. We have
discussed this issue briefly and we would support issuing an initial
statement to acknowledge receipt of the letters, perhaps followed by a
standardised, corporate- approved letter, but would like to ensure our
approach is supported, and consistent with any actions, by Corporate. As
some of the countries in which we operate have tangible "green" focused
projects e.g. we have acquired a wind project in The Netherlands, it may be
appropriate to allow such countries to personalise their response in local
language.

If we follow up an initial acknowledgement with a fuller response to
Greenpeace's questions, I suggest we consider the following issues raised
recently by Jackie Gentle:

"In response to several requests for clarification, I have spoken with Mark
Palmer who has provided the following information on Enron's stance
regarding Kyoto:

Enron has always taken the view that the Kyoto protocol was not a workable
solution to dealing with CO2 emissions.  However it is not the principles
behind Kyoto that we take issue with, rather it is the vehicle that has
been devised to deliver the results.

We firmly believe that there is work to be done in reducing greenhouse
gases and Enron has put in place a number of programs that have measurably
reduced carbon dioxide as well as SO2 and Oxides of Nitrogen (Nox)

By way of example ....
   emissions trading programs have been put in place where these can be
   implemented
   Enron is one of the largest developers of natural gas-fired power plants
   which produce about 50 percent less carbon dioxide than coal or
   oil-fired plants
   demand-side management programs through EES to reduce energy usage
   the Catalytica program
   focus on renewable-related projects

At the current time there is no formal statement from Enron Corp on the
Kyoto issue."

Before we proceed, I would be grateful if you could contact me to share
your views on this.

Many thanks.
Best regards
Kate

Kate Bauer
Manager Public Relations and Communications
ext: 32495

---------------------- Forwarded by Kate Bauer/EU/Enron on 17/04/2001 14:14
---------------------------

Nailia Dindarova@ECT
17/04/2001 13:28

To:   Peter Styles/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:   Eva Hoeffelman/LON/ECT@ECT, Jackie Gentle/LON/ECT@ECT, Julie
      Green/LON/ECT@ECT, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Fiona
      Grant/LON/ECT@ECT, Andrew Morrison/LON/ECT@ECT, Hans-mart
      Groen/Enron@EUEnronXgate, Ross Sankey/LON/ECT@ECT, Kate
      Bauer/EU/Enron@Enron, Paul Hennemeyer/LON/ECT@ECT, Teun Van
      Biert/LON/ECT@ECT

Subject:  Re: Greenpeace letters to Enron in the Netherlands and Spain re
      our position on Kyoto  (Document link: Kate Bauer)

We have now recieved a letter from Greenpeace Belgium here in the Brussels
office (please see attached).

(See attached file: Greenpeace Belgium_Letter April 13 2001.tif)

Peter Styles
17/04/2001 11:59

To:   Stacey Bolton/Corp/Enron@Enron, Rob Bradley/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Richard
      Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:   Nailia Dindarova/LON/ECT@ECT, Alfredo Huertas/LON/ECT@ECT, Teun Van
      Biert/LON/ECT@ECT

Subject:  Greenpeace letters to Enron in the Netherlands and Spain re our
      position on Kyoto

As I was saying in my e-mail a few minutes ago......................

---------------------- Forwarded by Peter Styles/LON/ECT on 17/04/2001
12:01 ---------------------------

Eva Hoeffelman
17/04/2001 12:52

To:   Jackie Gentle/LON/ECT@ECT, [email-masked]
cc:   Julie Green/LON/ECT@ECT, Peter Styles/LON/ECT@ECT, Mark
      Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Fiona Grant/LON/ECT@ECT, Andrew
      Morrison/LON/ECT@ECT, Hans-mart Groen/Enron@EUEnronXgate, Ross
      Sankey/LON/ECT@ECT, Kate Bauer/EU/Enron@Enron, Paul
      Hennemeyer/LON/ECT@ECT, Teun Van Biert/LON/ECT@ECT

Subject:  Greenpeace letter to Enron in the Netherlands re our position on
      Kyoto

Please find below the Greenpeace letter our Dutch office received today (as
has our Spanish office).  Their deadline for our answers to their questions
is before 26 April.  I am asking our PR agency in the NL to translate the
letter asap.

In the mean time, I will wait for direction on our official corporate
response on this issue and then discuss suitability or possible adaptation
for the Dutch market or for this letter in particular.

I have advised Hans-Mart to make sure all employees in the Dutch office do
not reply to any calls or queries re the above ubject and to refer them to
me.

Thanks
Eva
---------------------- Forwarded by Eva Hoeffelman/LON/ECT on 04/17/2001
11:36 AM ---------------------------

London Fax System2
04/17/2001 11:26 AM

To:   Eva Hoeffelman/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject:  New fax received (Likely sender: +31 0 206541966).

You have received a new fax from +31 0 206541966

The image contains 1 page(s).

 - Greenpeace Belgium_Letter April 13 2001.tif